DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate an inlet line in figure 1, character “11” has been used to designate the protrusion in figures 2-3, and character “11” has also been used to designate both the protrusion and an inlet line in figure 4. Additionally, character “15” has been used to designate both a valve in figure 1 and an outlet line in figure 4. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: items “13” and “14”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference characters in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 7-8: “situated in the upper part thereof” should read “situated in the upper part of the container”
Claim 1, line 9: “situated in the upper part thereof” should read “situated in the upper part of the container”
Claim 3, line 4: “a flow of gaseous fluid thereto” should read “a flow of gaseous fluid to the at least one second heat exchanger”
Claim 5, line 2: “a flow of gaseous or two-phase fluid” should read “a flow of gaseous fluid or two-phase fluid”
Claim 5, lines 3-4: “the first and second inlets” should read “the first inlet and second inlet”
Claim 6, line 1: “the inlets” should read “the first fluid inlet and the second inlet”
Claim 7, line 3: “a first heat exchanger” should read “the first heat exchanger”
Claim 7, line 3: “two ends of which” should read “two ends of the first heat exchanger”
Claim 8, lines 1-2: “at least one second heat exchanger” should read “the at least one second heat exchanger”
Claim 8, line 2: “two ends of which” should read “two ends of the at least one second heat exchanger”
Claim 9, line 2: “the various outlets” should read “the first outlet and the second outlet”
Claim 10, line 2: “a delivery outlet of which” should read “a delivery outlet which”
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 8 is also objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claims 9-11 are also objected to by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “generally” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The degree to which the container is a cylindrical shape is rendered indefinite by the use of the term “generally”. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require the container to have a cylindrical shape.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the use configuration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the use configuration" in line 3 of claim 1 to “a use configuration”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container " in lines 4-5 of claim 1 to “a remainder of a cylindrical volume of the container”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the main container" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the main container" in line 6 of claim 1 to “a main container”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the upper part" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the upper part" in line 7 of claim 1 to “an upper part”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lower part" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing "the lower part" in line 8 of claim 1 to “a lower part”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first inlet" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner recommends changing " the first inlet " in line 8 of claim 1 to “the first fluid inlet” which is given proper antecedent basis in line 7 of claim 1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the fluid inlet and the first fluid inlet to be the same components.
Claim 6, lines 1-2 recite, “wherein the inlets situated in the upper part of the container are offset in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction” which is unclear to the Examiner if both inlets are to be offset from the longitudinal direction or the inlets are to be offset from each other. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to require any offsetting of either of the two inlets from the longitudinal direction. The Examiner recommends making clarifying amendments to specify what the inlets are to be offset from.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the limitations following the phrase “for example” to be optional limitations of the claim and therefore not required.
Claim 9, lines 1-3 recite, “wherein the at least one second heat exchanger comprises a plurality of heat-exchange bodies, and in that the various outlets are respectively connected to different heat-exchange bodies of the same heat exchanger” which is unclear to the Examiner as to how the different heat-exchange bodies of the same heat exchanger relate to the plurality of heat-exchange bodies of the at least one heat exchanger. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim to read “wherein the at least one second heat exchanger comprises a plurality of heat-exchange bodies, and in that the various outlets are respectively connected to different heat-exchange bodies of the plurality of heat-exchange bodies of a single heat exchanger of the at least one second heat exchanger”. The Examiner recommends amending the claim as interpreted herein. Further, it is unclear to the Examiner how the various outlets of claim 9 (claim 9 only includes the first outlet and the second outlet) are to be connected to different heat exchange bodies of the same heat exchanger since claim 1 requires the first outlet to be connected to the first heat exchanger and the second outlet to be connected to the second heat exchanger. For purposes of Examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 9 to simply require the second outlet to be connected to heat-exchange bodies of the at least one second heat exchanger.
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 4 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 8 is also rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claims 9-11 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20120060553), hereinafter Bauer in view of Baaren (US Patent No. 11,577,183), hereinafter Baaren.
Regarding claim 1, Bauer discloses a separator vessel for separating liquid and gas phases (Fig. 1, separator D1; Pg. 2, paragraph 27, From the bottom phase of the separator D1, boiling nitrogen is removed and conducted via line 8 through the coldest section c of the heat exchanger E1. The nitrogen that is partially vaporized in this case is then fed via line 8' back to the separator D1; Pg. 2, paragraph 29, At the top of the separator D1, gaseous nitrogen is taken off via line 9 and fed to the middle section b of the heat exchanger E1) comprising:
a container of generally cylindrical shape (Fig. 1 of Bauer depicts the separator D1 to be a cylindrical shape; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above);
wherein the container further comprises: a first fluid inlet situated in the upper part thereof, a first outlet situated in the lower part of the container, the first inlet and the first outlet being configured to be connected to a first heat exchanger in order to form a thermosiphon (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, first fluid inlet A is depicted at an upper part of the separator D1 and first outlet B is depicted at a lower part of the separator D1; Pg. 2, paragraph 27, From the bottom phase of the separator D1, boiling nitrogen is removed and conducted via line 8 through the coldest section c of the heat exchanger E1. The nitrogen that is partially vaporized in this case is then fed via line 8' back to the separator D1; Further, the lines 8 and 8’ and heat exchanger E1 have the same structure as the claimed first fluid inlet, first outlet, and first heat exchanger and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed),
wherein the container further comprises: a second inlet, which is distinct from the first inlet, situated in an upper part thereof, and a second outlet, which is distinct from the first outlet, situated in the upper part thereof, the second inlet and the second outlet being configured to be connected to at least one second heat exchanger and to collect an at least partially liquid fluid and to return a gaseous fluid, respectively (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, second inlet C is distinct from the first fluid inlet A and second outlet D is distinct from the first outlet B and are depicted at the upper part of the separator D1; Further, second inlet C and second outlet D have the same structure as the claimed second inlet and second outlet and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
However, Bauer does not disclose the container of generally cylindrical shape extending in a longitudinal direction, which is horizontal in the use configuration, a lower part of the container being provided with a downwardly extending protrusion forming an additional volume communicating with the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container; and
the first outlet situated in the lower part of the protrusion.
Baaren teaches the container of generally cylindrical shape extending in a longitudinal direction, which is horizontal in the use configuration, a lower part of the container being provided with a downwardly extending protrusion forming an additional volume communicating with the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container (Fig. 2, degassing and/or liquid separation system 300, conventional liquid boot 175); and
the first outlet situated in the lower part of the protrusion (Fig. 2, water outlet 114; Col. 16, lines 3-10, a conventional liquid boot 172 may be positioned between the separator vessel and the water outlet 114 to facilitate measurement of the oil/water interface by certain sensors (such as guided wave radar sensors). Also, a conventional vortex breaker 174 may be provided upstream of the liquid boot 172 or on the water outlet 114 to prevent the formation of vortexes in the water, which may induce oil carry-under).
Bauer fails to teach the container of generally cylindrical shape extending in a longitudinal direction, which is horizontal in the use configuration, a lower part of the container being provided with a downwardly extending protrusion forming an additional volume communicating with the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container; and the first outlet situated in the lower part of the protrusion, however Baaren teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas-liquid separators to include the container of generally cylindrical shape extending in a longitudinal direction, which is horizontal in the use configuration, a lower part of the container being provided with a downwardly extending protrusion forming an additional volume communicating with the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container; and the first outlet situated in the lower part of the protrusion. This is strong evidence that modifying Bauer as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a separator that can be used in a configuration with limited vertical space). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer by Baaren and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a separator that can be used in a configuration with limited vertical space.
Further, Bauer as modified teaches the claimed invention except for the protrusion being configured to create a liquid level in the main container with a liquid height of no more than 500 mm. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the protrusion being configured to create a liquid level in the main container with a liquid height of no more than 500 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Moreover, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the protrusion being configured to create a liquid level in the main container with a liquid height of no more than 500 mm, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
PNG
media_image1.png
535
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer
Regarding claim 2, Bauer as modified discloses the separator vessel according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above),
wherein the protrusion has a cylindrical shape extending along a vertical axis and a diameter that is in a plane perpendicular to the vertical axis (Fig. 2 of Baaren depicts the conventional liquid boot to have a cylindrical shape extending along a vertical axis and a diameter that is in a plane perpendicular to the vertical axis). Further, the recitation, “wherein the protrusion has a cylindrical shape extending along a vertical axis and a diameter that is in a plane perpendicular to the vertical axis” is a result of the modification of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above.
However, Bauer as modified teaches the claimed invention except for the diameter is between 100 mm and 2000 mm in order to limit the entrainment of bubbles with the liquid. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the diameter is between 100 mm and 2000 mm in order to limit the entrainment of bubbles with the liquid, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of the diameter is between 100 mm and 2000 mm in order to limit the entrainment of bubbles with the liquid, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Bauer as modified discloses a cryogenic installation (Bauer, Fig. 1; Abstract, The invention relates to a method for liquefying a hydrocarbon-rich feed fraction, preferably natural gas, against a nitrogen refrigeration cycle) comprising:
the separator vessel according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above); and
a first heat exchanger, two ends of which are connected via a first line to the first outlet and a second line to the first inlet (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, heat exchanger E1 is depicted to have two ends connected via line 8 and to the first fluid outlet B and via line 8’ to the first fluid inlet A).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer
Regarding claim 8, Bauer as modified discloses the cryogenic installation according to claim 7 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 7 above),
further comprising at least one second exchanger, two ends of which are connected via a third line to the second inlet and a fourth line to the second outlet (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, heat exchanger E2 is depicted to have two ends connected via line 7 to second inlet C and via line 9’ to second outlet D).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer
Regarding claim 9, Bauer as modified discloses the cryogenic installation according to claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above), wherein the at least one second heat exchanger comprises a plurality of heat-exchange bodies, and in that the various outlets are respectively connected to different heat-exchange bodies of the same heat exchanger (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, heat exchanger E2 is depicted to have first heat-exchange body E2-A connected to second outlet D and second heat-exchange body E2-B; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer
Regarding claim 11, Bauer as modified discloses the cryogenic installation according to claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above), further comprising:
a feed gas circuit configured to feed a gas to be liquefied (Bauer, Fig. 1, line 1; Pg. 1, paragraph 22, As shown in the FIGURE, the hydrocarbon-rich feed fraction that is to be liquefied is fed via line 1 to a heat exchanger E1),
a set of one or more heat exchangers in heat exchange with the feed circuit (Bauer, Fig. 1, heat exchanger E1, heat exchanger E2),
a cryogenic refrigerator in heat exchange with the set of one or more heat exchangers and configured to cool the feed gas circuit (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, cryogenic refrigerator E is depicted to be in heat exchange with heat exchanger E1 and heat exchanger E2 to liquefy feed 1; Further, the cryogenic refrigerator E of Bauer has the same structure as the claimed cryogenic refrigerator and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed),
wherein the cryogenic refrigerator comprises a cycle gas circuit, which is subjected to a thermodynamic cycle in order to produce a cooling power (Bauer, Fig. 1, lines 6-17; Pg. 2, paragraph 27, The nitrogen required for providing cold is fed to the liquefaction process via line 6),
wherein the set of one or more heat exchangers comprises at least one of the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger (Bauer, Fig. 1, heat exchanger E1, heat exchanger E2), and
wherein the fluid circulating in the separator vessel via one or more inlets and one or more outlets is the cycle fluid, wherein the one or more inlets is selected from the group consisting of the first inlet, the second inlet, and a third fluid inlet, wherein the one or more outlets is selected from the group consisting of the first outlet, the second outlet, and a third outlet (See annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer below, first fluid inlet A, first outlet B, second inlet C, second outlet D).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bauer
Claims 3-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer as modified by Baaren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grenier (US Patent No. 4,228,660), hereinafter Grenier.
Regarding claim 3, Bauer as modified discloses the separator vessel according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bauer as modified does not disclose wherein the container comprises a third outlet, which is situated in the upper part of the container and distinct from the second outlet, the third outlet is configured to connect to the at least one second heat exchanger in order to send a flow of gaseous fluid thereto.
Grenier teaches wherein the container comprises a third outlet, which is situated in the upper part of the container and distinct from the second outlet, the third outlet is configured to connect to the at least one second heat exchanger in order to send a flow of gaseous fluid thereto (Fig. 1, separator 14, gas outlet 144, final thermal exchange member 129; Further, gas outlet 144 has the same structure as the claimed third outlet and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Bauer as modified fails to teach wherein the container comprises a third outlet, which is situated in the upper part of the container and distinct from the second outlet, the third outlet is configured to connect to the at least one second heat exchanger in order to send a flow of gaseous fluid thereto, however Grenier teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas-liquid separators to include wherein the container comprises a third outlet, which is situated in the upper part of the container and distinct from the second outlet, the third outlet is configured to connect to the at least one second heat exchanger in order to send a flow of gaseous fluid thereto. This is strong evidence that modifying Bauer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. directing various fluid flows to various heat exchangers of the system to ensure sufficient cooling is provided to the system to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer as modified by Grenier and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of directing various fluid flows to various heat exchangers of the system to ensure sufficient cooling is provided to the system to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 4, Bauer as modified discloses the separator vessel according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above).
However, Bauer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the first outlet and the second outlet situated in the upper part are off set in the longitudinal direction.
Baaren teaches wherein the first outlet and the second outlet situated in the upper part are off set in the longitudinal direction (Fig. 2 of Baaren depicts outlet line 166 and gas outlet 110 to be off set in the longitudinal direction).
Bauer as modified fails to teach wherein the first outlet and the second outlet situated in the upper part are off set in the longitudinal direction, however Baaren teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas-liquid separators to include wherein the first outlet and the second outlet situated in the upper part are off set in the longitudinal direction. This is strong evidence that modifying Bauer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing desired flow characteristics within the separator to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer as modified by Baaren and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing desired flow characteristics within the separator to improve overall system efficiencies.
Regarding claim 6, Bauer as modified discloses the separator vessel according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bauer as modified does not disclose wherein the inlets situated in the upper part of the container are offset in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, for example at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the vertical.
Grenier teaches wherein the inlets situated in the upper part of the container are offset in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, for example at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the vertical (Fig. 14 of Grenier depicts inlet 143’ and inlet 143” situated in the upper part of the container are offset in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction; As best understood, see 112(b) rejections above).
Bauer as modified fails to teach wherein the inlets situated in the upper part of the container are offset in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction, however Grenier teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas-liquid separators to include wherein the inlets situated in the upper part of the container are offset in a plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction. This is strong evidence that modifying Bauer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing desired flow characteristics within the separator to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer as modified by Grenier and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing desired flow characteristics within the separator to improve overall system efficiencies.
Further, Bauer as modified teaches the claimed invention except for, for example at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the vertical. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include for example at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the vertical, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges [or optimum value] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Moreover, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality of for example at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees with respect to the vertical, this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer as modified by Baaren as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cappiello (US Patent No. 3,830,073), hereinafter Cappiello.
Regarding claim 5, Bauer as modified discloses the separator vessel according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above).
However, Bauer as modified does not disclose wherein the container comprises a third fluid inlet configured to receive a flow of gaseous or two-phase fluid, the third fluid inlet being situated in the upper portion of the container and being distinct from the first and second inlets.
Cappiello teaches wherein the container comprises a third fluid inlet configured to receive a flow of gaseous or two-phase fluid, the third fluid inlet being situated in the upper portion of the container and being distinct from the first and second inlets (Fig. 1, vessel 2, radial pipe 10, tube 9, conduit 6; Col. 2, lines 57-60, The column is supplied with volatile fraction in gaseous form by a pipe 26 connected to the tube 9 and controlled by a valve 27; Further, the tube 9has the same structure as the claimed third fluid inlet and is capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Bauer as modified fails to teach wherein the container comprises a third fluid inlet configured to receive a flow of gaseous or two-phase fluid, the third fluid inlet being situated in the upper portion of the container and being distinct from the first and second inlets, however Cappiello teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas-liquid separators to include wherein the container comprises a third fluid inlet configured to receive a flow of gaseous or two-phase fluid, the third fluid inlet being situated in the upper portion of the container and being distinct from the first and second inlets. This is strong evidence that modifying Bauer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing desired flow characteristics within the separator to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer as modified by Cappiello and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing desired flow characteristics within the separator to improve overall system efficiencies.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer as modified by Baaren as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hashemi-Tafreshi (US Patent No. 3,236,057), hereinafter Hashemi-Tafreshi.
Regarding claim 10, Bauer as modified discloses the cryogenic installation according to claim 8 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 8 above).
However, Bauer as modified does not disclose further comprising a turbine having a delivery outlet of which is connected to the second inlet of the container.
Hashemi-Tafreshi teaches further comprising a turbine having a delivery outlet of which is connected to the second inlet of the container (Fig. 1, separator 5, expansion turbine 2, line 3, line 3a).
Bauer as modified fails to teach a turbine having a delivery outlet of which is connected to the second inlet of the container, however Hashemi-Tafreshi teaches that it is a known method in the art of gas-liquid separators to include a turbine having a delivery outlet of which is connected to the second inlet of the container. This is strong evidence that modifying Bauer as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing streams to the separator with desired thermal properties to improve overall system efficiencies). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bauer as modified by Hashemi-Tafreshi and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing streams to the separator with desired thermal properties to improve overall system efficiencies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Davies et al. (US 20130160487) discloses a similar separator with a thermosiphon.
Banerjee et al. (US Patent No. 9,157,038) discloses a similar separator vessel with a container of generally cylindrical shape extending in a longitudinal direction, which is horizontal in the use configuration, a lower part of the container being provided with a downwardly extending protrusion forming an additional volume communicating with the rest of the cylindrical volume of the container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 July 15th, 2026
Prosecution Insights